[MD] Consciousness (explained?)

[Ham Priday]

On 8/22/09 at 10:37 PM,  "markhsmit" <markhsmit at aol.com> wrote:


> Hi Ham,
>
> Understanding that is not intellectual is most of your being.
> You can understand intellectually Wagner, and you can
> listen to it with understanding. You can intellectualize
> a sunset and you can watch it. You can understand basketball,
> and you can play it. You can understand reality, and you can
> practice it.
>
> Which provides more understanding?  I feel that
> intellectualizing it provides less than living it. It is one step
> removed, and fractioned into words.

This is largely a question of semantics, but for me "understanding" equates 
to "comprehending", and I don't feel that the experiences you cite are 
necessarily comprehended in the same way that 2 + 2 = 4 or the MoQ thesis is 
comprehended.
I can enjoy the music of Seigfried without knowing the plot of the opera or 
understanding the key transitions of the score.  Likewise, I can enjoy the 
experience of a sunset without understanding the physics of prismatic 
diffraction or the angle of the sun's rays needed to produce this effect. 
(I don't play basketball, but I don't comprehend the rules of the game 
sufficiently to coach it.)

This doesn't mean I don't appreciate non-intellectual activities, or even 
that I see a need to "intellectualize" esthetic experiences.  But this 
started with your investigation of Dzogchen as an approach to "finding 
meaning".  Philosophical understanding of this kind doesn't come from daily 
experiences but from concepts formed intellectually over time.  So the 
question you're now posing is really outside of the original context. 
Tsongkhapa was quoted as saying that "without consciousness, there is no 
understanding."  Perhaps "apprehension" would have been a more proper term 
for what consciousness affords us.

> Your estrangement from the source, is what is called Samsara.
> Forget Wikipedia, what I mean is the experience of dualism.
> I think you might agree with me there. This condition was
> recognized many, many years ago, when man had more time
> to think.

How sad that modern man lacks the time to think.  No wonder philosophy 
hasn't advanced in the last two centuries!

> It is possible to experience the world in a non-dual manner.
> You may claim that such an experience is simply a condition of
> the brain, but you don't know until you have experienced it,
> otherwise it is simply intellectualizing.

Again, duality is "simply intellectualizing" a concept based on experience. 
The concept has no particular esthetic value; it's simply a relational 
precept or principle of existence.
Tell me, do you "experience the world in a non-dual manner" by erasing this 
concept from your mind or by imagining yourself as the world you see?

> There are 4 ways of viewing the world when we are separated
> from the source. Of things have existence, non-existence, having
> both existence and non-existence, and having neither existence
> or non-existence. All of these are dualistic. When I say it is
> not terminal to believe this way, I mean that there is a different
> way to think.

I don't understand (comprehend) "things having? existence and/or 
non-existence".  What things do not exist?  I don't recognize a thing that 
doesn't exist and nothingness is not a thing.  Are you referring to thoughts 
or imaginary numbers, by any chance, or are we playing "let's pretend"?

> You may claim that you do live your life according to your
> ontology. If that is true, you are contemplating your navel
> in a most meaningful way. You are meditating, there is nothing
> magical about it.

I live my life according to my values.  I seek understanding by 
contemplating ontology.
(I will admit that I have at times found it pleasurable to contemplate a 
belly-dancer's navel, although this kind of experience is difficult to enjoy 
on a daily basis.)

Cheers,
Ham